Apparently some silly USians want to extend copyright again:

Repeating my Twitter reaction:

When will musicians realize that their biggest competitor is ALL THE PAST RECORDINGS EVER and revolt against this madness?

The Internet is not what makes music hard work. Never was! It's competing with Elvis & Mozart.

Demand the right to build on the past, not compete with it.

@jankoekepan @HerraBRE great!

Then speak up! Let politicians and the public know about your view. It would make activists jobs so much easier.


All this is new to me... I thought copyright of creative work to safeguard something an artist created was a good thing... It stops plagiarism that not the case...

Please can you point me to some links where I can read more on this topic and be better informed while making up my own mind.

@HerraBRE @jankoekepan

@techbolt @HerraBRE @jankoekepan so... I would say read Cory Doctorow's stuff on BoingBoing and elsewhere. That's a good place to start.

Here's a few old texts of mine on the subject, too. Not even close to being in the same league as Cory's writing, obviously, but contain a lot of sources:


I just read the three blog entries. Thanks for that and as usual wonderfully written indeed.

I think I understand most of the concerns from what you have on the blog. However, I am struggling to get my head around one thing - What as per this school of thought is position on copyright with a limited term - Is it a complete no no or is it just that corporations are making it impossible for a work of art to come into public domain even long after the original creator has passed away and that must be tackled?

If latter, is it not common practice that copyrights are sold and ownerships transferred so as to ensure creator gets to keep the royalty which he/she rightfully deserved and is fully entitled to pass on to his coming generation or for the cause he/she truly believed in?

As a creator (and I am not one by a long long shot) what would be my motivation to continue giving entertainment to the society if anyone can steal my work and claim the fame and money that follows that fame?

@jankoekepan @HerraBRE

@techbolt @rysiek @jankoekepan I'll just turn that around. Why in the world should anyone get paid forever, for work they did once?

There are many problems in the arts world that make it hard for people to demand a decent wage. I am aware of this, which is why I concede that some form of limited copyright is even worth considering.

But once that wage has been earned, I don't see any ethical argument for continued payments, let alone restrictions on the thoughts and creativity of others.

I agree that getting work in public domain is good but for someone to create they need to be motivated and I can imagine perpetual monetary returns are as good as they get... I would be motivated by something like that -right or wrong comes later - motivation to create comes first and that to my simplistic mind appears to be prompted by this high return more often than I on wrong end of the stick here?

If I am not, then the right answer would be to keep up the motivation to create and keep the greed in check - somewhat like tax process. I have to give tax on what I earn so perhaps the time limit to copyright must have the hard stop as a way of community imposed rule rather than an expectation that a creator will willingly part from a benefit...

I mean tax is imposed because rarely anyone will be willingly paying tax unless it is imposed by the law so I can see a good reason to support a time limiting law but to expect creators or artists to support that law might be expecting too much from mere mortals.

@jankoekepan @rysiek

@techbolt @jankoekepan @rysiek Most of the artists I know are relatively poor, even broke. Money is definitely not what motivates them to create.

Acting as if society will suddenly become devoid of creative works if we abolish copyright flies in the face of reality. It's just not true, never has been and never will be.

The problem that needs solving, is to fairly compensate people for their work - and maximize the benefit to society.

Copyright does a crap job of both. Reform it! ๐Ÿ˜


That's true...Even I know quite a few artists who have to pick a secondary career and they are no less talented than the superstars backed by effective PR.

If I look at it from this angle I do feel that if the record companies did not have the lure of a copyright they might have been more inclined to bring all sorts of talent to fore rather than invest in PR stunts and promote one artist over another.

I will admit though I am still conflicted - perhaps need to read more like @rysiek suggested.

Thanks for taking the time to help me get started with a topic that does interest me a lot. ๐Ÿ‘ ๐Ÿ™‚


@techbolt @rysiek @jankoekepan It's a complicated subject! Thanks for listening with an open mind, that's rare these days.

I also want to say, that even though I have a vision for how I feel things should be, I don't expect we can get there in one step. That would be unfair to people who have built their lives around the current system.

But we can't even make minor improvements if people are unwilling to at least think about alternatives.


@HerraBRE @techbolt @rysiek

There are other positions to consider. The way that copyrights are written right now, they constitute a limitation on your own brain, to the point that they constrain artists, rather than liberate them (check out the lawsuits like the Marvin Gaye estate/family's case).

Once enough of the culture is locked down, every artist (and engineer, and designer) is straitjacketed forever.

ยท ยท Web ยท 0 ยท 2 ยท 3
Sign in to participate in the conversation

Server run by the main developers of the project ๐Ÿ˜ It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!